Telus on the Spectrum Auction

Telus responds to my column this week on the forthcoming wireless spectrum auction with a letter to the editor in today's Ottawa Citizen.  The company says that it takes exception to my advocacy for a set-aside for new entrants, stating that "we strongly believe that the competitive playing field should be free from government intervention so that companies can compete fairly for customers."  The letter adds that the spectrum auction "is not about traditional wireless phone service."

Flip over the business page, however, and you get a different message from Telus CEO Darren Entwistle.  Seeking to sell a Telus – Bell merger, he now says that "we believe that there are clear remedies to ensure vibrant and sustainable competition without divesting the mobile networks of either company." Those remedies including "setting aside spectrum space in an upcoming auction to be held by the government that could be awarded to a new entrant into the wireless market."

In the same paper on the same day, Telus argues that the spectrum auction is not about traditional wireless phone service but can remedy competition concerns for traditional wireless phone service and it also argues that the government should not intervene in the market.  Except when it should.


  1. Ya and we already have Net Neutrality ri
    This is the same nonsense where they managed to convince the minister\’s that we already have sufficient NN regulation.

    Ignoring phones altogether, the concentration of backbone and the threat to a diversity of voices online is considerable. You want to create a mega phone company fine, but that\’s not this.

    This is an Internet play to create the largest not-neutrality network in the country. To think that there could be any competition with this merger and without strong NN regulation is just rediculus and the CRTC should see it for what it is.

    Further I heard the argument that the choice was between letting a US company buy BCE or approving the merger. This is another BS argument because we already have foreign ownership rules that should not be relaxed.

  2. Fair to whom?
    The statement ‘so that companies can compete fairly for customers’ says it all. They want the system to be fair to the telco’s, but say nothing about being fair to the public. And do remember that the Industry Minister is their for the telco’s, representing consumer interests is not really his thing.